Building a Community’s Adaptive Capacity for Post-Mining Plans Based on Important Performance Analysis: Case Study from Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I propose that they change the Monthly Income (IDR) to a different currency, such as EUR or USD, to make the paper more understandable by the scientific community.

I would change the name of point 6. Framework, Policy and Action Plan, as they are more conclusions than other things. In the same line, point 5. Discussion and Conclusion may be re-name to Discussion only. 

Figure 2 should include an initial broader area to properly identify the place by readers unfamiliar with Asia.

The initial references: Mining is important because it provides essential raw materials for various industries [1,2], such as construction, electronics, and manufacturing. It also contributes significantly to many countries' local economic development [3]. However, mining can also negatively impact the environment, including deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions [3,4], are completely irrelevant. Please, eliminate.

I think it is interesting to change the name of point 2. Literature Review, for something like problem, materials or something similar as it is normal in this kind of paper.

Do not use an acronym in a title: 3.1. The IPA.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

      We revised the manuscript base on the comments and suggestions from Reviewers Report. Many thanks for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article offers a useful model and methodology for an adaptive capacity framework for how communities dependent on mining can prepare for mine closure. It has the potential to offer a good contribution for thinking about planning for post-mining futures.

 

The title and abstract should make it clear, though, that it is dealing with a case study from Indonesia. The title should also be ‘Building community adaptive capacity…’ (not ‘community’s adaptive capacity..’ Or, it could be ‘Building a community’s adaptive capacity…’, which would then make it clear it is dealing with one specific community). In the conclusions, the authors should describe how they feel such an adaptive capacity framework can be used beyond Indonesia, especially given the very different situations in which mining communities are placed in different parts of the world.

 

The authors state that “The study's findings can help policymakers and mining companies to develop and implement sustainable mining practices that promote economic growth, reduce inequalities, and build partnerships with local communities. By prioritizing adaptive capacity dimensions, such as access to assets and resources, and ensuring the widespread dissemination of information, mining companies and policymakers can create a more sustainable post-mining scenario.” These findings will indeed be valuable for such processes, but it does make me wonder about responsibility and accountability.

 

For example, how are mining companies held to account for what they do once a mine closes? Beyond the requirements for mine reclamation, how are companies – and in this case, the gold mining company – responsible for ensuring a community adapts to new economic circumstances once a mine closes? Companies make claims for corporate social responsibility, but as we know, once a mine closes they often move on to the next project and the next mine. In Indonesia, are there impact benefit agreements put in place with communities, or local and regional authorities, before a mine project begins that ensure communities can begin to strategise for a post-mining situation?

 

Also, what would be an example of a ‘sustainable mining practice’?

 

The authors say that the mine closure plan began to be ‘socialized’ (I am not sure if this is the correct term) in 2018, because the permit expires in 2021. Presumably, then the permit expired 2 years ago, so what has happened since then? Has the mine now closed? How far have some of the mine reclamation efforts and the plans for mine tourism progressed?

 

I think it would be very useful to have a bit of history of the mine.

 

For example:

 

When did extraction begin?

 

What, at the time the permit was granted, was the anticipated lifetime of the mine?

 

During the permitting and regulatory process, what kind of stakeholder and community involvement was there?

 

What was the consultation process like?

 

What kinds of discussions took place/what kinds of concerns were expressed about what would happen to the miners and the community once the mine closed?

 

Were people already talking about the post-mining future earlier than 2018?

 

This invites a broader question that any community asks – and which mining companies need to answer – at what point does thinking for the post-mining future begin?

 

Is the consultation process about a mining project something that can be said to be participatory and inclusive? If so, then there may be some optimism for thinking that an adaptive capacity framework for post-mining futures can also be something that will bring together stakeholders in a positive way.

 

I appreciate that the study is largely quantitative and that there are some interesting and useful data for thinking about a post-mining future, but I was left wondering if it is possible to include some quotes from respondents that would give a sense of their own voices. I think this is particularly important given the emphasis on community agency.

 

How, for example, do people feel about mine closure, and what concerns did they have before the mine started? What promises did the company make to the community, and, again, was discussion about a post-mining future an integral part of the consultation process?

 

I think it may be useful for the authors to reflect on some of these points and questions, but I also recognise that the article is sketching out and proposing a framework for adaptive capacity and how communities, policymakers, and companies can work together to find solutions to the challenges that mine closure brings.

 

 

There are a couple of phrases that are not entirely clear. For example on line 244: ‘…this mining company's existence makes the surrounding community's economic life squirm.’ Is ‘squirm’ the appropriate word here? If so, then the author’s need to elaborate upon what they mean by it.

 

There is also some repetition – for example on line 286, there is no need to say that the study was ‘conducted in Bantar Karet Village, where a gold mining company was located’ as this has already been introduced earlier. Also on line 287 and 298, we are told that the number of respondents was 420, so perhaps this mention on line 298 needs to be deleted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

      We revised the manuscript base on the comments and suggestions from Reviewers Report. Many thanks for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf